Not reading between the lines.

[Rageaholic]

Something I'm noticing on online discussions is how so many threads get derailed because someone said something that could have been interprated wrong. Example, someone makes a comment on how they're sick of Christians hating on homosexuals. Suddenly, several Christians counter saying "OMG you're generalizing. Not all Christians are like that!!". Then the next several pages are people getting butthurt over being grouped in with bigots.

Okay, maybe the person didn't put a disclaimer saying "I know not all Christians are like that", but is it really necessary? It's sometimes easier to just say "There are a lot of Christians who are homophobes" than to have to spell it out. If a person is complaining about Christins hating on homosexuals, than doesn't it stand to reason that they don't have a problem with the non hateful Christians? (or at the very least not talking about them in that post). The fact is, a lot of Christians have some hateful views. They use their religion to justify hating groups of people, making them different from your average bigot (which is why the Christian part is mentioned). Of course not all of them do. If you are Christian and don't hate or think less of gay people, then that person is probably not talking about you. Why would they?

Now I know some people can be sneaky about what they say. They try to emphasize that they aren't generalizing, but really are. Here's an example of one of those articles. But that should be clear in the message of what the person is posting. In the FOX news article, the person basically saying that women belong in the kitchen. I can understand women (or anyone) taking offense to such baloney. But that's much different than the person who's ranting about hateful Christians. The one ranting about hateful Christians are actually complaining about people who are hateful. At worst, they might think all or most Christians are like that, but they would still have no reason to hate on the ones who aren't hateful. Unlike the FOX news article which is advocating people being treated less because of their gender.

I'm rambling now, but my point is that too many discussions get sidetracked by what people think is meant. When the bigger issue (people using idealogy to hate on others) is often ignored.

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, it's really necessary.

If a person wants to have their argument heard in the manner in which they mean it, then it behooves them to present it in that manner and not rely on the other side being able to infer something not specifically stated.

"You know what I meant," is not a valid excuse when nobody involved is capable of reading minds and there is no expression, posture, or inflection to give further nuance.

Honestly, if a person doesn't want to get lambasted for lumping all Christians under the label of "bigot," then they should add a qualifier. Because, otherwise, how does one tell the difference between someone who thinks that all Christians are bigots from the one that thinks that only some Christians are bigots?

Words have meaning as agreed upon by the people using them. If you are using them in a non-standard manner, then it should come as absolutely no surprise when the rest of the crowd takes it the wrong way. That goes for being too lazy to qualify your statements, as well.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

If you want to arguably the semantics of language like that then these reader is at faulty for interpreting the comment like that, the very fact that there is not a qualifier stating that "all christians hate on homosexuals" makes the statement correct, christians do hate on homosexuals, not all of them, but there are christians who do.

[fireheart17]

Admittedly for some people, the skill of inferring may not have been taught (or picked up) while at school and they lack that ability to do so.

I only say this as the new Australian Curriculum now requires children from Years K-2 to spend some time on learning how to read between the lines. O_o

[crashhelmet]

If you want to arguably the semantics of language like that then these reader is at faulty for interpreting the comment like that, the very fact that there is not a qualifier stating that "all christians hate on homosexuals" makes the statement correct, christians do hate on homosexuals, not all of them, but there are christians who do.

Gays are sexual predators

How do you interpret that?

Jews are greedy
Muslims are terrorists
Republicans are misogynists
Democrats are socialists
Women are gold diggers
Blacks are criminals
Hispanics are illegals
White men are pedophiles
Asian men are domestic abusers
Atheists are elitists

Without a qualifier, it makes it a blanket statement.

[Rageaholic]

If you want to arguably the semantics of language like that then these reader is at faulty for interpreting the comment like that, the very fact that there is not a qualifier stating that "all christians hate on homosexuals" makes the statement correct, christians do hate on homosexuals, not all of them, but there are christians who do.

That's one of the things I'm getting at. I've seen people say something to the effect of "A lot of Christians have something against homosexuals" and the discussion turns the semantics of generalizing. I could understand if someone said "All Christians hate homosexuals" or "all Christians suck", but there's this trend of people of a certain group getting defensive when ever other members are criticized. As if unless someone specifically states who they are criticizing, they will be accused of generizing.

Not that how we word stuff isn't important, but come on.

[TheHuckster]

That's one of the things I'm getting at. I've seen people say something to the effect of "A lot of Christians have something against homosexuals" and the discussion turns the semantics of generalizing. I could understand if someone said "All Christians hate homosexuals" or "all Christians suck", but there's this trend of people of a certain group getting defensive when ever other members are criticized. As if unless someone specifically states who they are criticizing, they will be accused of generizing.

I see a lot of generalizing that borders on hate, though, which is why I think a lot of people take offense to these kinds of statements. It's not uncommon to see someone comment that Christianity should be eradicated because of those who use their religion as a facade over their own personal bigotry or downright ignorance. A lot of these comments are made be Internet trolls, of course, but a lot of them mean what they say.

As Crashhelmet says, if someone said, "A lot of Muslims are terrorists" or "A lot of blacks are criminals" I wouldn't blame someone for taking it the wrong way.

[HYHYBT]

The thing is that, whatever the *poster* may mean, entirely too many people really do mean all are like that; it even happens often enough to be worth remembering that there are people (often gay, often understandably burnt) who use the fact that some Christians (etc) are against them as an excuse to attack religion in general. It tends not to happen here, but I've run into it fairly often on some sites.

But the OP has the wrong end anyway. Making such a clarification IS NOT what derails threads. By itself, that's just exactly what it is: a clarification, read, comprehend, and move on. What derails the thread, if it happens, is when *other* people cease to discuss the topic and instead go to arguing over whether the generalization was justified or not.

It's sort of like the difference, if we were all having the same conversation in person over lunch, if you told me I had a glob of ketchup on my face and, instead of going on with the existing conversation from there, everybody jumped in about how that happens to them all the time, or how they once knocked over the whole table, etc and never came back around to whatever subject there was. It was still right to mention the ketchup. It was wrong not to leave it at that.